HAVEN'T BEEN HERE IN A WHILE?
Please check your email address and make sure it is up-to-date.
If you are on this list, you need to update. OR if you know someone on this list, please contact them and have them update.
THE LIST
Upon updating, please contact an Admin so we can remove you from the list.
Thanks.
Other Science Fiction ShowsA place to discuss all of the other Sci-Fi shows which may tickle your fancy!
* Factual errors: While looking at a DNA sequence Terri Fisher says that the last two chromosomes are missing. What is missing is actually the last two nucleotides. DNA does not have chromosomes.
* Factual errors: When looking at the DNA model, only a few base pairs of the DNA are shown. All DNA is exactly the same regardless of what organism it comes from. The only differences lie in the sequences of the nucleotide bases. It is absolutely undeniably impossible to distinguish human DNA from any other type of DNA based on the very short stretch of bases shown in the figure at which the scientist proclaims "that DNA looks human." Humans have over 3 billion bases, and almost all of them are in common with other primates. A few bases will never be enough to prove that any DNA is human in any time period or technology level. It is thus a gross contradiction of scientific fact.
* Revealing mistakes: In the weightless scene inside the space station, Woody's watch slips down his arm, indicating the presence of gravity.
* Factual errors: When Woody Blake takes his helmet off in space he freezes instantly. This would not happen, as heat transfer in a vacuum is inefficient. He would probably suffer from oxygen deprivation (and, if he didn't exhale promptly, the bends and pressure differentials) first.
* Factual errors: When on the planet of Mars we continually hear sounds. There is only an insignificant atmosphere and so we wouldn't hear anything except for the radio in their helmet/rocket.
* Factual errors: When the three astronauts enter the alien structure and view the solar system model, all the planets (and the Earth's moon) are revolving in the wrong direction. Viewed from the Northern hemisphere, planets rotate counter-clockwise around the Sun, and so does the Moon around the Earth. It is possible that the alien solar system model is seen from the other orientation i.e. our Southern hemispheres of the planets are on top for them. However a Mars with large ocean masses in the top hemisphere is seen, which is in fact our Northern hemisphere of Mars, assuming that water filled the depressions on Mars long ago.
* Continuity: While viewing the DNA sequence on the computer, the cable on the left side is plugged in, and then out, and then in again.
* Factual errors: Inside the face, Jim checks the screen on his wrist to see what the gasses were in the room. It reads "Nitrogen 57% Oxygen 20% Trace Gasses 1%" which doesn't add up to 100%. The nitrogen should be at 79%.
* Factual errors: The walls of the tent should be fully inflated by the much higher pressure inside, compared to the low atmospheric pressure of Mars.
* Factual errors: Because there is no pressure in the outer space, the astronaut's space suits should look swollen since there is air pressure inside them. However, in the movie astronauts suits look normal when they are in the open space (we can see changing wrinkles). The same is valid for when they are on Mars surface.
* Factual errors: The Mars Recovery vehicle is shown pointing forward before it attempted to go into orbit. Any spacecraft would have to point backwards in the direction of negative acceleration, and thus slowdown, to enter orbit.
* Factual errors: During the scene where Terri attempts to rescue Woody she resets her fuel readout to 100%, it is then stated that by using only 50% of her fuel the remaining 50% would get her back, This is incorrect. The first 50% would allow her to reach a certain velocity in respect to the ship, the remaining 50% would only allow her to get back to the same velocity as the ship not to the ship itself.
* Factual errors: When Phil Ohlmyer shows the "DNA-model" of his dream woman to Jim McConnell, the free floating candy moves in a circular motion around the center of the model. Unless the candy is interconnected, this would be impossible to obtain in real life, as the individual pieces of candy can only have a straight line of motion. Even if you would rotate one candy in a circular motion and then release it, it would continue in a straight line tangent to the circle.
* Factual errors: In the movie it stated that the 23 chromosomes came from Mars about a million years ago and set off the explosive growth on the planet Earth. This is not true at all. Humans are the only organisms that have 23 chromosome sets [we are diploid having 46 actual chromosomes]. Different organisms have a different number of chromosomes so sending 23 chromosomes to earth wouldn't have really started the 'explosive growth of life on the earth'. Ferns for example have over 1000 chromosome sets.
* Factual errors: When Woody removes his helmet, he would freeze because boiling point is a function of pressure. As the suit pressure went to zero, moisture in his body would quickly boil away, and subject to Boyle's law, would rapidly cool.
Up until I scanned down and saw the link to IMDB I was thinking: "Good gravy, this man either has a LOT of free time or Mission to Mars really got under his skin!"
Still a fascinating read, even if it requires the reader put more thought into the movie than the script writer's apparently did.
* Factual errors: When Woody Blake takes his helmet off in space he freezes instantly. This would not happen, as heat transfer in a vacuum is inefficient. He would probably suffer from oxygen deprivation (and, if he didn't exhale promptly, the bends and pressure differentials) first.
and
Quote:
* Factual errors: When Woody removes his helmet, he would freeze because boiling point is a function of pressure. As the suit pressure went to zero, moisture in his body would quickly boil away, and subject to Boyle's law, would rapidly cool.
Can't have it both ways........
I saw the movie. Moving scene. The movie as a whole, though, was a solid "eh".
I did like the way the tiny meteorite punctured the ship and the guy's hand.
I am
Dawg
__________________
"...I aim to misbehave." Capt. Malcolm Reynolds, Serenity.
* Factual errors: When Woody Blake takes his helmet off in space he freezes instantly. This would not happen, as heat transfer in a vacuum is inefficient. He would probably suffer from oxygen deprivation (and, if he didn't exhale promptly, the bends and pressure differentials) first.
and * Factual errors: When Woody removes his helmet, he would freeze because boiling point is a function of pressure. As the suit pressure went to zero, moisture in his body would quickly boil away, and subject to Boyle's law, would rapidly cool.
Can't have it both ways........
I saw the movie. Moving scene. The movie as a whole, though, was a solid "eh".
I did like the way the tiny meteorite punctured the ship and the guy's hand.
I am
Dawg
The word is sublimation:
You can freeze outside and boil inside at the same time, if the pressure is low enough and if you have a separating membrane.
I am familiar with sublimation. Having grown up with a chemist father, I daresay I am at least as familiar with it as anyone else outside a lab. It is the process by which a solid becomes a gas without the intervening liquid stage. Dry ice is a perfect example, as there is no liquid produced as it "melts", it just evaporates.
Can't quite get the process working with a human body in a vacuum, though. I'll take your word for it because the picture my mind is painting is kind of gross......
I am
Dawg
__________________
"...I aim to misbehave." Capt. Malcolm Reynolds, Serenity.
Despite the flaws in the storytelling and a large dollop of wonky science, I really enjoyed Mission to Mars. I liked the characters in the film and how they interacted with each other. I largely enjoyed the visuals in the film as well. I just found it entertaining to watch - to me, the difference between Mission to Mars and Red Planet is similar to the paring of "asteroid hits the Earth" films Deep Impact and Armageddon. Mission to Mars makes an honest, but off kilter attempt to show the concept of traveling to Mars, where Red Planet is just an outer space horror tale with an angry robot beast hunting down the characters. Mission to Mars may not be great art, but I enjoy watching it as a form of entertainment. The only two bits of the film that grate on me were the scenes where the ship is holed by a micrometoroid and the deadly slow pacing along with the plodding score that accompanies it. The other is the end of the film that depicts a mysterious Martian hand in the genesis of life on Earth. I've always liked the "life here began out there" idea, but in this film it just falls short of interesting. It reminds me of the underwater alien scenes in The Abyss.
I think I'll have to go buy this on DVD - I've not seen it in a long while...
Bryan
__________________
"When Commander Adama sees these, he's gonna go crazy!" - Col. Tigh - "Saga of a Star World"
"If you love long enough, wish hard enough, anything is possible" - From The Boy Who Could Fly
Vacuum sublimation is caused at the skin (the membrane I mentioned) where the oils and the sweat that you exude constantly flash freezes. Meanwhile, the sudden droip in pressure on you causes you to suffer the bends and as the vacuum works its effects into you internally; your body's inside pressure drops over a minute or so and your blood boils until the cold eventually freezes it solid. Rough analogy: frozen blood sausage subjected to a 5 minute microwaving on HIGH.
Damocles some times it like been in a class room reading your posts lucky I can have a peak at a dictionary at time to check on the meaning of some words ..
to the subject .. Mission to Mars .. I never got into and as for STN the less said the better .
Yeah so bad an actor that they had to hire somebody competent to play his CLONE; because the casting director knew Chromedome couldn't carry off a split role like
Yeah that is "The Enemy Within" from which Berman ripped off "Nemesis".
Outkirk Kirk? Can't even lick the shadow of Kirk's footsteps off the floor!
You're going to have to make up your mind about what it is that you want to bash. One moment, you're going on about bad movies, but then the next moment, you're going on about who's a bad actor. Frankly, you've got so many "Why I hate....." topics going, I know a whole lot about what you don't like, which is pretty broad, but almost nothing about what you do actually like or admire. The topic is about bad movies - you started it, now stick to it.
That being said, I'm going to respond to your crticism of Patrick Stewart as an actor. Have you ever seen the man's work outside of TNG? Patrick Stewart may not be the pinnacle when it comes to acting talent, but in terms of his work and the characters he's portrayed, I find him very versatile and layered when it comes to what he's capable of. Comparing Stewart to Shatner as an actor is pretty much an apples to oranges comparison. They're not even the same type of actor, in style or presence. I feel that each has plenty to offer on many levels, but that doesn't make one actor better than another, merely different.
Back to the movie thing - first you start out by saying that one movie is bad, but then you throw in another bad movie that's even worse (Nemesis), but fault Stewart for his performance, but accuse Berman and Braga of ripping off a TOS Trek episode in the process. Either the movie's bad because of the writing, or the performing. If the material is bad, you can't fault the actors for having very little to work with. If the script is bad, not even top notch performances can save it. Conversely, you can have a great script, but have the film ruined by poor performances. In terms of Nemesis, I would put the failure on the writers and the producers because the film is completely unwatchable. I've tried once or twice on AMC when they broadcast it - I'd go as far to say that it is far worse than Trek V, which used to be my least favorite Trek film. Trek V still isn't a great film, but it's not nearly as horrible as Nemesis when all is said and done.
Just on a personal note, I feel that you're stuck in that "I hate TNG" groove even though that's in a different thread. Even if the movie was bad, I really think that it's the TNG connection that bothers you most.
Bryan
__________________
"When Commander Adama sees these, he's gonna go crazy!" - Col. Tigh - "Saga of a Star World"
"If you love long enough, wish hard enough, anything is possible" - From The Boy Who Could Fly
Story
Character
Acting
Filming technique (direction)
Art of the setting.(the look)
Any one of the five fails and you have a clunker.
An example of a good movie where it all comes together is Forbidden Planet. Here you have a great story "A Midsummer Night's BEM", great actors; Walter Pidgeon, Leslie Nielson, Cameron Mitchell, Ann Francis (eye candy) Jack Kelly, Richard Anderson, Earl Holliman, darn even the robot and the monster could ACT!
You had set design that was fantastic that dictated what would be called the "Irwin Allen Look" when he copied it years later. The story rollicked along crisply with no dead time or distractions from the plotline, Fred Wilcox never did finer work in his life as a director, with what was a rather thin script when you tear into it. Everybody had fun on that movie. It shows! It was ensemble work where everyone climbed above potential-even Earl Holliman as Cookie with his cliche' comic role made something unique as the robot's drinking buddy.
Another example of this is Iron Man. You can't tell that another otherwise could be pedestrian movie wasn't carried on Morton Downey's back. If he didn't make you believe in Iron Man you would notice the average other four elements and not rate that movie very high. He so carried that movie that he forced good performances out of the rest of the cast, overwhelmed whatever the director thought he was doing, and made that movie SHINE.
The rest of the movie just had to be good enough not to distract from Downey. The art was better than good, as was the writing. Both were clean and crisp and didn't get in the way of character. Ironman was a character study of Tony Stark.
THAT is what I like.
Patrick Stewart in other roles?
Remember "I Claudius"?
Like Jamie Bambir, who has the same defects, in a scene he stinks on ice.
Why are we bashing on Patrick Stewart all of a sudden? I thought this thread was about MISSION TO MARS. The man wasn't even in it, was he?
I vaguely recollect I, CLAUDIUS when it aired on PBS. In general I liked it, even though it was a plodding bore at times, but then again that's British acting for you. Still he was probably better in that than he was in LIFEFORCE.
But, since we've gone so far off the rails, I'd like to add. .
* That's NOT what the aliens look like.
* They TOTOALLY got the look of the "face on mars" structure wrong. They show it as a large intact metallic structure when, in reality, it's constructed of cermacrete and has impact damage on it's left side.
* The Martian sky is NOT that color.
* The "tornado" is not really associated with the face structure, that happened when the original expedition from the 50s entered one of the large pyramidal structures and started playing with machinery they knew nothing about.
* If you think I'm making all this up as I go along, you've earned a cookie and some milk. Now run along and play children.
ST:N(K)R is a stinker movie. Patrick Stewart is one of the reasons it skunked on screen.
Mission to Mars was just an example of a stinker movie.
Here's another :
It weas supposed to be played for dark humor. It was just an Tim Burton ego-trip mess. Not even funny, iy was long, tedious, boring and stupid. "Robot Monster": with the dressed out dino-geckos and the cast hopped on drugs was funnier and better paced.
You know it still takes me a moment to read "episode 3" and have my brain click over to "it's the prequel trilogy" - mostly because my brain doesn't want to remember Jar-Jar trying desperately to be Har-Har hilarious but only being a piddling nuisance or. .
But did you find it bad because you were a fan of the game or just simply because you felt it was a poorly scripted movie with a barely believable story and ridiculous looking fighter craft?
But did you find it bad because you were a fan of the game or just simply because you felt it was a poorly scripted movie with a barely believable story and ridiculous looking fighter craft?
I'd like to chime in on that one....
I was introduced to Wing Commander as a PC game through a roommate. I loved playing the game as I found it very challenging and exciting - especially because it was a computer game that was able to entertain.
When I heard that a film was coming out, I was pretty excited about it because at that point, it had been quite a few years since I had played the game. I wondered what it would be like as a film. Would it be just as exciting to watch as it was to play? I could only wonder until the film came out. When Wing Commander came out as a film, I saw little tiny bits of what I experienced as a game, but not much more than that. The film was nearly unrecognizable compared to what I knew. I know that there's always something lost in the translation to film, but in this case, too much was cast aside.
I found the casting to be largely uninteresting and the VFX to be only moderately good. The story......well, it's been a long time and the only thing I can remember is the metaphysical mumbo jumbo surrounding the lead character, which just felt shoehorned into the story to provide an air of mystery. The fact that I've completely forgotten the rest of the film just proves to me that the film didn't have much to remember it by.
There are other films that I have seen way before it - both good and bad, but I remember more about those films than I do Wing Commander...
Bryan
__________________
"When Commander Adama sees these, he's gonna go crazy!" - Col. Tigh - "Saga of a Star World"
"If you love long enough, wish hard enough, anything is possible" - From The Boy Who Could Fly
Most movies made by the sci-fi channel (those animal movies are terrible).
Another movie I didn't like that much (and people will disagree with me here) is Ironman. I don't read the comics and went with a friend and I knew what was going to happen in every scene. It was way too perdicitible.
__________________
Check out my updated webpage, stories updated weekly www.ajscifistories.com
You cannot go against nature, because when you do, that's part of nature too.
Stinker Movies.
